We analyzed this app across 2 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 4.2 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-05 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 4.2, updated 2026-09-23.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Paywall blocks the basics
Used to be free, paywall to use the pdf now — This used to be free, but now after you go through the trouble of making your pdf, it tells you to upgrade to pro (one time fee). Shouldn’t be listed as free anymore, you can’t do anything…
Was Free to Start, and Now It’s Not! — This app was recommended to me by a friend. I haven’t seen been using it for business receipts. But all of a sudden they are trying to charge me a fee to forward my PDFs. I feel tricked into this…
Terrible $10 scam — Used to be free, but now costs $10 to download your pdf and it only tells you after you’ve created the pdf. Used to love the app but now just a scammy cash grab.
States a price, or offers a one-time purchase
Great Value — I love that the paid version with unlimited downloads was only a small one time purchase
BEST scanner! — Literally every other app REALLY wants you to SUBSCRIBE to their plans when scanning more than one page in a batch, but I don’t use these scanners that often to do that. Genuinely willing to pay a one time fee or something…
This cost money but it’s worth it and way cheaper than anything else — The good things in life aren’t free so get over the fact you’ll have to pay for an app. I’ve had this app for work for the last 2 years and it makes everything so much…
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Two independent signals are read — user reviews and the store listing — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.